Debating with intuition as well as logic

If you’ve ever been frustrated that your neat logical arguments aren’t persuading people, this article is for you…

Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow had a strong influence on my thinking last year. He helped me get greater clarity on the difference between instinctual and reasoned thinking and I blogged about how VCs need to switch between thinking fast and thinking slow.

Now I’m reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which offers another take on the subject.

Haidt is interested in how we come to moral judgements and his work shows that most people start by making a snap decision and then afterwards they find a logical argument that supports their position. The point here is that the logic comes second, and it is rare for people to change their initial judgement in the light of rational argument. He then goes on to argue that this is the way most people think about all topics. He explains how western philosophy puts reason on a pedestal and venerates those who are able to think clearly and dispassionately with the result that we have ended up seeing emotion as an impediment to good decision making.

The reason Kahneman is so interesting because he challenges the notion that purely rational thought should be our goal. He shows that for a lot of decisions we rely on intuition and don’t employ reason at all.

I’m interested in Haidt because he goes a step further. He shares Kahneman’s view that most of our decisions are made intuitively, but argues for a more nuanced model of how that happens. He makes an analogy with how we process visual information. First there is a sub-conscious pattern matching and then if the image is ambiguous and resolving that ambiguity is important we add more and more reasoning until we’ve cracked it. Where Kahneman has a dichotomy between intuitive and reasoned thinking Haidt sees a continuum. Moreover, for Haidt, all thinking processes start as intuitive and then reason is added later if needed and to the extent the thinker is inclined to think that way.

Anyone who works in startups has to continually make decisions from relatively small amounts of information. Doing that well not only requires making the right calls, but also having good judgement as to when to make a decision and when to go looking for more data. Good investors and operators have ‘golden guts’ and come quickly to firm judgements. One of the challenges we all face from time to time is that our judgements don’t tally with our partners.

One of the things I like about Haidt’s model is that it helps understand how we come to those judgements and therefore offers an increased chance of resolving differences. Step one is to recognise that opinions on both sides are most likely rooted in an intuitive pattern match of some kind. Step two is to uncover those patterns and look there for the sources of differing views. People’s first answer to ‘why do you believe x?’ will most likely be post hoc rational analyses, and getting to the underlying patterns will require a commitment to the process on both sides and patient use of something like the five whys technique.

If this process is going to work it requires both sides to recognise that their opinions are most likely rooted in intuition as well as logic and to be ready to accept that they might be the one who needs to change.